Kabam...AW match making frustrations boiling over

Markjv81

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Markjv81 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Cobs said:

Having prestige weighed as heavily as it is currently is creating bigger mismatches then before, point blank. Heres an example:
A man has a big house (prestige), surely he has exotic cars so he is challenged to a race by another man (war). The first guy replies, sorry i only own a prius i wouldnt be much of a race against your ferrari. But the second man insists and low and behold, the man with the prius loses the race. Just because he is rich and owns a big house does not mean he wants to race his prius against ferraris. Just because an allaince has high prestige doesnt mean they want to compete in war. Being competitive in one game mode shouldnt ruin another game mode.

If they don't want to compete in War, why are they running it?

You need to run AW to earn loyalty to pay for AQ. You cannot play high map AQ without playing AW, remove the loyalty costs from AQ or implement new ways to earn loyalty and can guarantee a lot of alliances stop running AW 100%.

You can earn Loyalty, win or lose.

Huh? You asked why are people running war if they don’t want to compete, I just told you why.

Yes, and I said if the issue was Loyalty, it shouldn't be. They get it no matter what. The comment was that people don't want to compete. War is a competition. Seasons are competitions. If you're entering, you need to either be prepared to compete, or not care and run the risk of losing. I don't condone overpowering other people who are trying to compete because you don't feel like putting in the effort at your level. (You in the general sense.)

You’re confused.

QuikPik

All Kabam needs to do is make a simple query from their database. Look at the alliance rating, prestige, war rating and season rank within each tier and see what their system has done.

You have 10-12m alliances all over Gold 1 because they only get matched against similar prestige alliances which also happen to be around the same alliance rating. These alliances never get matched against a higher prestige alliance with the same war rating. Under the old system, a 12m alliance would get matched against 24m if their war rating was in the same ballpark.

Now you have winners of the Little League World series taking home MLB World Series trophies.

GroundedWisdom

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:

xNig said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I'm going to say this once more and I'm done going over it and over it.
When comparing Allies and strength, Prestige is useful. You're only as strong as your toughest Champs. When you have an Ally with 5000 Prestige go up agaisnt one with 10,000 as a loose example, who do you think will win?

I agree with you on that. However, like what others have mentioned, using ONLY the top 5 is a bad measurement when others are able to have a deeper roster.

GroundedWisdom said:

The strength of the Defense you put up is reflected in the Rating, and Prestige is a measure of the highest you have. Is it an idication that all your highest Champs are great Defenders? No. What it is, is an indication of strength. Total strength overall.

True. But this is why there’s a “War Rating” metrics that measures exactly this. Attackers/Defenders/Skill/Willingness to spend items. Prestige as an added measure complicates this because, as mentioned above, it is insufficient to only measure the top 5. If prestige were to include the top 20 champions of a roster, then it might be worth considering.

GroundedWisdom said:

I'm really done going over this because at this point, I've made my points and we're just regressing. No system is perfect. This is where we're at after people abused the Matchmaking to the point that it was no longer a reflection of what Allies were capable of. I'm all for only running Wars during Seasons, TBH. Agree or disagree. I'm tired of going in circles. Lol.

Regardless Seasons or Off Seasons, Wars are free shards, win or lose. That’s my opinion though.

We don't know if they're even using it. However, signs point to it being used. Reason I pointed that out is we don't know if it's Top 5, Top 8, Top 10....it's an average.

War Rating is a reflection of performance. It only works as a measure of performance in an honest system. Meaning people are playing to the best of their capabilities, whether through spending or not. That's no longer the case. Between Shells and Tanking, people are all over the place. It's no longer a measure of skill or ability. Take 2 weeks for example. Calculate the reduction in War Rating for 2 weeks. More with a longer hiatus. That's the difference in capabilities that results from Tanking. Give or take a Win/Loss margin. That's quite a step down. It's been shifted all over the place, both as a result of those factors and so many reductions from punitive measures. War Rating is no longer a reliable indication of ability because people have used it in combination with the added medium of Seasons. It used to be. Not now.
In essence, what few Allies are seeing in the difference in War Rating now has been happening wide-spread in the Off-Season. Only the result is on the backs of people being overpowered and cheated out of an honest effort in the Season. For every overpowered Win when Seasons start again, there's an Alliance cheated out of an honest fight and chances at Points. It's a lesser of two evils, and definitely a better system where the fight is more even.
I'm not debating Prestige as a metric anymore. It is 100% an internal measure of strength, and I've outlined the ways it is, and is already being used. People can't see the forest for the trees on this one.
Nothing is free Shards. There is work and effort beind every Win and Loss, and when your work doesn't matter at all because there's literally no chance of winning, just because someone played the system, that's about as wrong as it gets. It's not even free Shards when Allies Tank. They get the small Win Rewards compared to the larger Season Rewards that they could be earning, only they don't have a fair chance because those same Allies who Tanked will turn around and beat them when it counts for Points. There's also another added effect it has on the overall system and progress in general, but I'm too tired to explain it. Lol. Basically it freezes progress to play that way. For most. In any event, I wanted to reply to you, but I've said about all I can say on it. It's going over about as well as Pisa.

Which is what the current system allows. Hence, it’s better to improve the system and make war ratings a part of multiplier instead of them placing people in static ones with static multipliers.

Take eg, Tier 2 is around 2.7k to 3k rating. For an alliance at 3k rating, it’s more beneficial to drop to 2.7k and win back to 3k since the multiplier is exactly the same. It’s not manipulation, it’s being smart, playing within the system, similar to how individuals use donations and other means to reduce their tax liabilities.

However, should war ratings be directly proportionate to multiplier, the exact same alliance in tier 2 will most likely stay at equilibrium 3k ratings due to having a higher multiplier. Even if they were to decide to tank and drop to 2.7k, they might win their way up but each point earned contributes fewer score to their season score as due to a lower 2.7k multiplier.

It's not just about them. They're stopping up the whole system and preventing other people from reasonable progression. You can't solve it by simple Points reductions. As long as they're connected, people will try and manipulate one with the other.

Batman05

You can’t punish people who want to take war at a more relaxed pace vs people who gonall out on boosts and potions. And also not every one in the alliance will be at the same skill level so you can hurt not only whole alliances but also individuals more than others. I haven’t used a boost or item in the last two seasons but some of my team Mates have to. So using prestige to unfairly match wars would hurt them even more than me. Also prestige is also bad bc someone could rank 5 some five starts bs someone who has more rank 4 five stars. Those making them have less prestige but a stronger defense bc they have more rank 4,s than me bc I chose to rank 5 instead

GroundedWisdom

There IS no perfect system, and the fact is, "taking it easy" is really just an excuse to trample over weaker Allies so they can win without pressure. People want to "take it easy", but they still want to win, and that comes at the expense of people below their pay grade. It's a much less harmful situation to have a regulator than it is the anarchy without one. Progress is being frozen for most of the system. The Rankings are interconnected and stifling progress for some demographics stops progress throughout. It's a mess. It's the best solution I can come up with to mitigate damage with what's currently set up. I first suggested Seasons years ago. I can't say it was my idea they took, but I suggested it a long time ago. Only, what I suggested was much the same as Diablo 3 where each Season, you start new, and progress is measured by what you did that Season. So, I've always wanted them separate. I wanted the measure to be what you did within that Season only. However, here we are. Anything outside of this and I'd have to devise an entirely new system that has a Placement process where you run Trials that determine where your skill range is, then you play the Season based on how you did in the prerequisite. Which is possible, just not easy to iron out.

KnightZero

Matchups by prestige avoids the harsher matchups where one alliance is totally mismatched, but in a seasons format, it's more of a disadvantage to a lot of alliances. There are alliances in Plat 3 which are 6-9 mill rating with most members not even having a single 5/65 and then you have alliances in gold with multiple ones just due to 'prestige' matchups which really isn't fair. Obviously mismatches are bad, but in such a format as seasons, getting to the top of Plat without facing proper Plat alliances is unfair to other alliances who put in equal work but face top alliances most of the time

GroundedWisdom

Define proper Plat Alliances. Seasons are based on performance. Not ownership of spots. Not that there's been much movement in the past regardless. The same Allies colluding so they don't have to fight each other. Seasons is a competition of Points. Who places where is based on how many Points they put up relative to others. Much the same as the Arena. It's not one where Allies own a spot that they had the previous Season.

GroundedWisdom

Not using Items is not the same as what we're talking about. So far, all you've given is a list of justifications. Taking it easy, not good at War, not using Items....

GroundedWisdom

I think that's a very calculated way of explaining something that has no business happening. Sure, we should be able to upset the whole system and hang out where the Wins are easy. Here's X, Y, and Z. Not buying it.

GroundedWisdom

When content is hard is not the same at all. We're talking about a system that people rely on to Match them within reasonable limits that's being manipulated and shifted well beyond reasonable limits. It's not just "people whining about tough content". If an Alliance in Silver or Gold comes up against Thanos, as per your example, that's a bloody problem. You're saying you should just be able to take out whoever you want in the name of taking it easy, and the other people on the end of that just have to deal with "hard content". Do you realize how incredibly one-sided that is?
The system can't make you better at War, and that's not an excuse to be able to overpower people.

LeNoirFaineant

GroundedWisdom said:

When content is hard is not the same at all. We're talking about a system that people rely on to Match them within reasonable limits that's being manipulated and shifted well beyond reasonable limits. It's not just "people whining about tough content". If an Alliance in Silver or Gold comes up against Thanos, as per your example, that's a bloody problem. You're saying you should just be able to take out whoever you want in the name of taking it easy, and the other people on the end of that just have to deal with "hard content". Do you realize how incredibly one-sided that is?
The system can't make you better at War, and that's not an excuse to be able to overpower people.

You are missing his point. People in higher war go hard. They boost constantly and use a lot of items. If they stopped doing this under the old system, they would lose until they reached whatever point their skill level and item use level allowed them to play roughly equivalent wars, win some lose some. This is not the same thing as tanking in order to "take it easy" by murdering low alliances. Under the current system they lose but instead of reaching that point of balance they keep matching higher groups going hard with similar prestige. I agree that we have yet to find a perfect system, but that's no reason to ignore the flaws in this one.

QuikPik

What concept don't you understand? Taking it easy in war is not using items. If that means someone doesn't clear a path and it's a loss, so be it. Also someone moving down from tier 3 alliance to say tier 6/7 is taking it easy as the opponents should be easier. That's not the case anymore tier 6-8 is full of lots of good alliances because they are constantly being matched against one another.

I have a friend in a tier 3 alliance. Great good for them except they are a 12 million alliance. They have a high gold 1 rank because all of their matches are against other alliances in the same range. Not once did they have to fight a large tier 3 alliance.

Kabam has created a system where the best handful of alliances in a certain prestige range get higher war season rewards than they should. Is it fair that the best 5000 prestige alliance gets Gold 1 rewards even though they never played a true Gold 1 alliance?

GroundedWisdom

QuikPik said:

What concept don't you understand? Taking it easy in war is not using items. If that means someone doesn't clear a path and it's a loss, so be it. Also someone moving down from tier 3 alliance to say tier 6/7 is taking it easy as the opponents should be easier. That's not the case anymore tier 6-8 is full of lots of good alliances because they are constantly being matched against one another.

I have a friend in a tier 3 alliance. Great good for them except they are a 12 million alliance. They have a high gold 1 rank because all of their matches are against other alliances in the same range. Not once did they have to fight a large tier 3 alliance.

Kabam has created a system where the best handful of alliances in a certain prestige range get higher war season rewards than they should. Is it fair that the best 5000 prestige alliance gets Gold 1 rewards even though they never played a true Gold 1 alliance?

I wasn't even talking about not using Items. What you're calling taking it easy is resulting in people being stifled and overpowered, and progress within the majority of the system being frozen. If you're asking me if it's more important for people to "take it easy" than it is to allow for a reasonable and fair chance to progress, then I'm going to say no. People are running Seasons because they're trying to compete and progress. Not because they just want to take a break.
As for the idea that people should or shouldn't get Rewards, they should get the Rewards that they put up Points for. Simple as that. At the end of the Season, it's all about where the Points score. Not that Alliance A deserves it more than Alliance B because that's where they "should" be. It's not a monopoly on Ranking. You "should" get the position you earned based on the Points you put up relative to the Points other Allies put up. If I'm running the Arena and I put up more Points than someone with a 1.3 Mil Rating, I earned that position. This whole idea that Alliances belong somewhere because that's where they were before is ignorant to the fact that it's a competition that ends based on what you put up within the Season, from start to finish. What Points you earn are based on the Wars you play, combined with the Multiplier you have, not whether you beat everyone else in that Bracket. There isn't even enough time in the Season to play everyone else to the top. So, I disagree. It's all about Points. Not a Deathmatch scenario where you fight your way up the rungs. It's not that kind of competition. It's like an Arena. Rankings are based on Points. Brackets are based on Points.

QuikPik

As usual your argument makes no sense. If my 10 year old son's little team plays only against 7 year olds and they go 12-0. While all the other 10 year old teams beat up on one another and go 6-6, do they deserve to be champions of the Little League?

RagamugginGunner

GroundedWisdom said:

Drooped2 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Drooped2 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Drooped2 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

That depends on what you define as chill. Having a reasonable range to Match with is pretty much as it should be. If you're calling chill Wars just taking out weaker people because it's easier, then I'm going to have to say sorry about chill. Lol.

When a 2k rating allaince is facing plat 3 2400 allainces all season cause that's what our prestige suits were getting punished for what we used to do.

If we get equal matches to our war rating cool but mid/gold 1 against plat 2 and 3 allainces? Which we've had all season?

Yea prestige is the wrong way to go

When an Alliance that has the fire power to run Plat is taking Allies down much lower, just because they want to take a break, that's not a fair system. On the other end of that, you have Allies trying to get ahead as best they can. War Rating alone can easily be manipulated and the end result is Matches that are entirely too overpowered.

Got it so because we can do something we should be forced? That's a terrible way to do things. And will just tell us hey you want a break delete the game.
Way to run a business.
War rating is fair it's a skill mechanic.

Forced? No. No one is forcing you to do anything. What is not right is to hang out in lower Brackets just to peck off other Allies in the name of taking it easy. That's not fair to them, and it's not fair to the competition of Seasons.
War Rating is a fair mechanic. Not when you have people using it to manipulate the Matches after you add the Seasons Points and how they relate to that. The end result is you need something that intervenes to prevent that.
No one is forcing you to do anything but if you're going to play War, it should be a fair fight. Taking a break doesn't warrant overpowering people.

Agreed a fair fight so it shouldnt be against allies 3m higher rated and 400 higher war rating then us for a full season simply because we used to be a aq focused ally. Glad we agree.

Prestige is based off of Top Champs, no? What would 3 Mil more have to do with it? If your Prestige is similar, you would have similar fire power. Alliance Rating is a total of all Champs. Chances are, you're not running most of them in War.

This is so wrong it hurts.

Having 5 high prestige champs doesn't make anyone good or able to compete in a war against a team full of r5 defenders. Stop guessing and arguing it as fact.

GroundedWisdom

That's not what's happening and that's not what will likely be reflected in the Final Rankings. Honestly, I think people are more offended that Allies can progress than anything. The Top doesn't own its spot. It earns it every Season. How it earns it is through Points earned, based on a Multiplier. This isn't a set system where people have spots that are theirs. Ratings are all over the place because Allies have been doing so much shifting and moving, and now you have varying strengths all across the board. Alliance Rating is a total of all Champs. What people are using in War however, is not the total of all the Champs they have. They're using a total of 8 per Player. The best they can muster.

Greywarden

Drooped2 said:

And a top aq allaince has faced nothing but the top aw teams theres a big thread on it from @Greywarden

^^^^ this. I’m not saying people not in the top don’t deserve to have a chance at the top but when a group is getting the same multiplier as mine for winning wars where prestige is an average of 1-2k lower I call BS.

If prestige wars are going to be a thing then groups facing higher prestige opponents need to have a higher multiplier. Winning against a groups that don’t even have a full profile of r5’s shouldn’t give the same points as winning against a top 10 alliance.

KnightZero

GroundedWisdom said:

Define proper Plat Alliances. Seasons are based on performance. Not ownership of spots. Not that there's been much movement in the past regardless. The same Allies colluding so they don't have to fight each other. Seasons is a competition of Points. Who places where is based on how many Points they put up relative to others. Much the same as the Arena. It's not one where Allies own a spot that they had the previous Season.

It's not about owning a spot. A 7 mill alliance sitting in Plat 3 because they have a high multiplier and face weaker alliances than the rest of the guys in the same bracket. If you want to tangle with the higher tiers, you have to face them. This is basically a League system. A and B can't be in the same league yet face opponents on the opposite end of the spectrum.

KnightZero

It doesn't matter if B is weaker than A or not. If you're making a 7 mill and a 20 mill alliance exist in the same bracket, the opponents should be of equal difficulty. Or multiplier should be different. Simple as that.

DTMelodicMetal

Players made jokes about “prestige wars” coming back to MCOC when T5BC and Map 7 was added to AQ. Turns out the “prestige wars” joke was actually referring to the last few months of AW matchmaking.